2021年8月14日 星期六

When $1 trillion isn’t as much as it sounds

Keeping the federal budget in context.

For Times Subscribers

View in browsernytimes.com
New York Times logo
Jamelle Bouie

August 14, 2021

Newsletter Notice

Beginning in September, the Jamelle Bouie newsletter will only be available to Times subscribers. Subscribe to The Times to continue receiving it.

A selection of our newsletters will soon be reserved for Times subscribers. Subscribe now for $1/week for access to Times journalism and all of our newsletters — to follow your interests and discover new ones.

Bettmann, via Getty Images
Author Headshot

By Jamelle Bouie

Opinion Columnist

On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted to approve the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act on a bipartisan vote of 69 in favor and 30 against. That bill is the first in a two-bill package. The second is a $3.5 trillion budget bill that Democrats intend to pass on a party-line vote, using "reconciliation," a process that allows them to bypass the filibuster on select spending bills.

Democrats took their first step toward passing that bill on Wednesday, with a partisan vote to begin that process.

Now, I don't want to spend too much time on the ins and outs of Senate procedure. Instead, I want to make a minor point about the size of the bill.

Make no mistake: $3.5 trillion is a lot of money. So much so that several moderate Democrats have already announced their discomfort with the number. Here's Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona:

I have also made clear that while I will support beginning this process, I do not support a bill that costs $3.5 trillion — and in the coming months, I will work in good faith to develop this legislation with my colleagues and the administration to strengthen Arizona's economy and help Arizona's everyday families get ahead.

Early this morning, I voted 'YES' on a procedural vote to move forward on the budget reconciliation process because I believe it is important to discuss the fiscal policy future of this country. However, I have serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family if Congress decides to spend another $3.5 trillion. Over the past year, Congress has injected more than $5 trillion of stimulus into the American economy — more than any time since World War II — to respond to the pandemic.

Again, those are big numbers. But one thing that isn't as well appreciated as it should be is the sheer size of the American economy. And when we're talking about numbers in the trillions and the hundreds of billions, we should always remember that the denominator is the entire productive output of the entire United States. In 2020, during a pandemic and the downturn that came with it, the U.S. economy clocked in at $20.93 trillion.

Over the next 10 years — which is the time span for most of the spending in the reconciliation bill — the U.S. economy will create between $250 trillion and $300 trillion worth of value, assuming modest, year-over-year growth. Compared with those numbers, a $3.5 trillion bill is not much at all, equivalent, in terms of an individual household, to something less than the median cost of a month of rent in the United States.

Except, whereas rent goes to a landlord, the Democrats' $3.5 trillion "Build Back Better" bill will go toward a child allowance and universal pre-K, housing assistance, clean energy, environmental conservation and health care. Given the challenges facing the United States — and the gargantuan size of our economy — that bill could probably be a little bit bigger.

What I Wrote

My Tuesday column was on the filibuster and how passing an infrastructure bill is not actually evidence the Senate can work:

The case against filibuster reform is that the 60-vote requirement to end debate ensures consensus on any given piece of legislation. The bills that pass, much less come to a vote, are those with broad support across the entire Senate. The infrastructure bill — a large package of new spending in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico — passes the test with flying colors. But that is exactly the problem.

My Friday column was on the common idea that vaccination is a "personal choice" when, in fact, it isn't:

If American society has been reshaped in the image of capital, then Americans themselves have been pushed to relate to one another and our institutions as market creatures in search of utility, as opposed to citizens bound together by rights and obligations. If "there are certain habits, certain attributes of character without cultivation of which there can be no individual progress, and therefore no social progress," as Henry E. Sharpe, a theorist for the Knights of Labor, wrote in 1883, then you could say Americans today are a little out of practice.

Now Reading

Sam Thielman on the poor treatment creators receive at the hands of Marvel and D.C. Comics, in the Guardian.

Tina Vasquez on industrial chicken processing in Scalawag magazine.

Emily Temple on "The Green Knight" in Literary Hub.

Leah Wright Rigueur on Black motherhood in The Atlantic.

Lolis Eric Elie and Josh Farria on the chefs of New Orleans in The Bitter Southerner.

As for books, I'm reading an old classic, a recent release and a coming release. The old classic is "The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788-1800" by Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, a detailed analysis of the first years of the United States, the personalities involved, the conflicts among them and the ideologies at stake. The recent release is "Reign of Terror: How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump" by Spencer Ackerman, a bracing chronicle of the war on terror and its corrosive effect on American democracy. And the coming release is "Hero of Two Worlds: The Marquis de Lafayette in the Age of Revolution" by Mike Duncan, an immensely compelling biography of Lafayette and a disquisition on the limits of bourgeois liberalism.

I'll have more thoughts on all three books once I finish them.

Reminder: This newsletter will soon be reserved for Times subscribers.

Your access to the Jamelle Bouie newsletter ends in September. Subscribe now to keep receiving it, and to enjoy all the benefits of being a Times subscriber.

Photo of the Week

Jamelle Bouie

I don't often share pictures of myself, but I like this one. I'll call it a "self-portrait" although it isn't really, since you can't clearly see my face. I took it at a local car show. The car itself was beautiful.

Now Eating: Maque Choux

A wonderful Cajun side dish, maque choux is bright, sweet and a great way to use summer corn. Serve with whatever you'd like or eat on its own. The recipe calls for a lot of butter, but feel free to reduce as much as you see fit. Recipe from NYT Cooking.

Ingredients

  • 3 fresh ears of corn, shucked
  • 8 tablespoons unsalted butter
  • ½ red onion, cut into small dice
  • 2 celery ribs, cut into small dice
  • kosher salt
  • 1 red bell pepper, cored, seeded and cut into small dice
  • 1 small poblano pepper, cored, seeded and cut into small dice
  • 1 small serrano chile, very thinly sliced
  • freshly ground black pepper
  • smoked paprika

Directions

Working with 1 corn cob at a time, set the ear of corn upright in a medium bowl. Shave the corn from the cob by slicing down the sides using the tip of a sharp chef's knife, holding the knife almost vertically. (This gives you neat tablets of corn that land squarely in the bowl and keeps the kernels from scattering all over the counter.) Using the back of the knife, scrape each cob to release all the nibs and the "milk" of the kernels into the bowl. Repeat with remaining ears of corn, then snap the cobs in half, and add them to the bowl.

In a large, deep sauté pan, melt 3 tablespoons butter over medium heat until foaming. Add onion and celery, and season with 1 or 2 pinches of kosher salt. Stir constantly until softened and translucent but not browned, about 5 minutes.

Add 2 tablespoons butter and the bell pepper, poblano and serrano, and stir constantly, adding another pinch of kosher salt, letting the butter melt and the peppers soften and become translucent, about 2 or 3 minutes. You will smell the peppers' sweetness and their mild capsaicin releasing.

Add the final 3 tablespoons butter and the corn mixture from the bowl, cobs included, and another pinch of kosher salt. Stir constantly to coat with the butter and combine thoroughly.

When everything starts to hiss and sound hot, but isn't cooking so hard as to take color, add ½ cup water and a healthy few grinds of black pepper, and cover the pan for a couple of minutes to steam/shallow braise the mixture.

Remove the lid, and stir well, noticing the corn releasing its liquid and the kernels softening, and the cobs turning somewhat translucent, if however vague. You will notice a general softening and melding together. Return the lid, and let cook a few more minutes, noticing the water evaporating and the remaining liquid reducing and gaining some "body" and gloss. Discard the corn cobs.

Taste for salt, and serve. It should be sweet, spicy, a bit wet and surprisingly complex, given the few ingredients and their ordinariness. If you want a smoky taste, add a good pinch of smoked paprika.

Enjoy this newsletter? Subscribe to keep receiving it.

We've reserved a selection of newsletters, including this one, for Times subscribers. Subscriber support ensures that we have the resources to deliver original, quality journalism in every form — including our newsletters.

Your access to this newsletter ends in September. Become a Times subscriber to enjoy our journalism and to continue to read this newsletter and any others you find interesting.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Jamelle Bouie from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

2021年8月13日 星期五

The Daily: Our Window of Climate Opportunity

To achieve a more "just and livable" future.

By Lauren Jackson

Welcome to Friday. In the weird time-warp that is this seemingly indefinite pandemic, we're 1) as shocked as everyone it's already mid-August and 2) sending our well-wishes to anyone with kids going back to school. If you have Covid-related questions about their return, record them in a voice memo and send them to us. We'll answer them in an upcoming episode.

In this newsletter, we're giving you something to feel (at least slightly) hopeful about after today's show on the latest landmark climate report. Then, we're introducing you to one of the original members of team Daily, our all-star mix engineer.

A Narrow Window of Opportunity

"We lived in paradise — now it's hell," one resident on the Greek island of Evia said this week after fires destroyed 120,000 acres of forest on the island.Eirini Vourloumis for The New York Times

This week, the news was bleak: The climate crisis has arrived, and it's going to get worse before it can get better. As you heard in our episode this morning, a major new United Nations scientific report has concluded that countries and corporations have delayed curbing fossil-fuel emissions for so long that we can no longer stop the climate crisis from intensifying over the next 30 years. It's an assessment both sobering and, potentially, immobilizing.

ADVERTISEMENT

"We are facing this massive global systems challenge. If that doesn't make you feel small … if you're not feeling grief, rage, anxiety, or some mixture of both of those things, you're probably not paying attention," said Dr. Katharine K. Wilkinson, co-author of "All We Can Save," an anthology of climate writing and solutions we recommended in the newsletter a few weeks ago.

But the report also offers a "glimmer of hope," as Henry Fountain, our guest and climate correspondent, said. "For years, thinking about climate change has left me with a sense of paralysis, but this week was clarifying," producer Diana Nguyen added. "We learned that it's not too late to stave off the worst possible outcomes of a warming world."

Avoiding the worst — 2, 3 or even 4 degrees Celsius of warming — will require a coordinated effort among countries to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by around 2050, which would entail a rapid shift away from fossil fuels starting immediately, as well as potentially removing vast amounts of carbon from the air — halting and leveling off warming at around 1.5 degrees Celsius, the report concludes.

This necessitates transformative structural change. "So I think then the question is, how then do you participate in more systemic change still as an individual?" Katharine said. We asked Henry and Katharine to answer that question, and are sharing their recommendations for what you can do in this window of opportunity:

ADVERTISEMENT

Getting educated and staying hopeful: Henry recommends subscribing to The Climate Optimist newsletter from Harvard's public health school for a monthly dose of solutions-oriented climate reading. We've also curated a playlist of our latest coverage of the climate crisis for you to better understand how we know recent extreme weather has been influenced by human activity and what the United States and European Union are (or aren't) doing about it.

Opportunities for divestment — and investment: "Bill McKibben has described money as the oxygen that is fueling the fires of the climate crisis, quite literally in some cases," Katharine said. She encourages people to think about "opportunities for getting capital out of the sources of the problem and into solutions," whether they are managing their own investments, their companies' or their clients.

Incorporating climate awareness into your day job: "I've described the climate crisis as the ultimate calling out of extractive capitalism, and the fossil fuel economy, but also the ultimate calling in," Dr. Wilkinson said. "What are your superpowers and how can those be contributed in some way to the work that needs doing on climate? Because we are so much more than our consumer choices, we are so much more even than our voting practices and civic participation," though those are important, she adds. "Many of us can find ways to weave climate into our professional lives."

Katharine named filmmakers who have started to incorporate climate narratives into their work (like the writers of Ted Lasso) and food service managers, chefs and restaurant owners that are "migrating toward plant-based and regenerative farmed foods" in their kitchens.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Anyone reading this has access to power of some kind. Comparatively speaking, you may feel small, but you hold influence and power in some way. You have capabilities that can be brought to bear," she said, on a "just and livable future."

Mixing Your Morning

Meet Chris Wood: Sound Astrologer and Daily Engineer

Celine Kuklowsky

In the next profile in our series on the team behind the show, let us introduce Chris Wood, who engineers The Daily every morning from London before the East Coast wakes up.

What is your role for The Daily?

I'm the last pair of ears on each episode before it reaches the public. Essentially, I try to make it sound as good as possible — mixing and mastering it, as well making any last-minute edits.

I have a parallel career in sound and installation art. As part of this practice I give tarot readings based on the positions of GPS satellites, and have taught an Amazon Alexa to speak in tongues using machine learning.

OK, cool. Can you say more about this work?

​​This practice developed because I was interested in getting people to think more critically about these radical technologies that are becoming seamless and invisible in our everyday lives, what they mean and who benefits from their use.

For example, GPS is a massive military technology that's been normalized within everyday use. Reframing it as a divination tool makes it visible again and asks us to reconsider its uses.

What time do you usually wake up? Can you walk us through your morning routine?

I've been waking up earlier than usual since my son was born earlier this year! Officially I start work at 3 a.m. E.S.T. (8 a.m. London). I usually try to be in my chair with coffee by 7.30 a.m. London time. I'll check over our session and work out what needs the most urgent attention (for example, I've been removing a lot of AC noise behind our guests' home recordings this summer). After multiple rounds of listening and edits, I finish the file just before the 6 a.m. E.S.T. deadline. I've gotten faster and the delivery process has become much smoother over the years I've been mixing the show. It's more of a jog now than an all-out daily sprint.

What's one of your favorite memories working on the show?

There are lots of times when we've had to turn around an extremely last-minute episode on deadline. I find this super satisfying. I also loved going into the field for an episode last year, in which we interviewed people on the streets of London as the vaccine started to roll out. The responses you get when you put a microphone in front of people can be surprising, engaging and chaotic — I love that energy!

What have you been listening to lately? Can you share a podcast and/or music recommendation for our listeners?

I've been really enjoying John Glacier's debut album, "SHILOH: Lost For Words." She's a talented London-based artist who worked on the project with Vegyn, a producer who has collaborated with Frank Ocean.

In terms of podcasts, I always listen to "Between the Ears," the BBC's sound-rich documentary strand. A recent episode, "Listening to the Deep," follows the sound artist Jana Winderen as she uses hydrophones to present the amazing sound world beneath the sea — and to capture how oceans are under pressure from the climate emergency.

On The Daily this week

Monday: How mask mandate bans are affecting school reopenings.

Tuesday: The Taliban has captured cities across Afghanistan. What that means for the American withdrawal — and the Afghan people.

Wednesday: The resignation of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Thursday: What the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the partisan budget plan tell us about the state of Congress.

Plus, for your weekend. A special show from our culture team asks: Why is everyone obsessed with Bennifer?

That's it for The Daily newsletter. See you next week.

Have thoughts about the show? Tell us what you think at thedaily@nytimes.com.

Were you forwarded this newsletter? Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.

Love podcasts? Join The New York Times Podcast Club on Facebook.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for The Daily from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

LiveIntent LogoAdChoices Logo

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/

Wonking Out: Who knew used cars and shipping containers would matter so much?

Economic notes from inside Plato's Cave. 

For Times Subscribers

View in browsernytimes.com
New York Times logo
Paul Krugman

August 13, 2021

Author Headshot

By Paul Krugman

Opinion Columnist

To be a good empirical economist, you must be prepared to make use of economic data without forgetting that the data is at best an imperfect guide to reality. I used to describe national income accounting — G.D.P. and all that — as a peculiarly boring form of science fiction. That's not to say that the statisticians just make things up; they try really hard, and their work is immensely valuable. It's just that any close look at how the numbers are constructed reveals that data coverage is always incomplete and the gaps are filled in with estimates and imputations.

Lately, however, I've found myself drawn to another analogy: Economic measures, especially the measures we use to make sense of a rapidly changing situation, are like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. That is, they're imperfect images of an underlying reality that exists, but that we can't directly see. And sometimes it's important, in interpreting the shadows, to think about the Platonic ideal we're actually trying to discern.

What the heck am I talking about? Inflation, of course, which has been running high the past few months — although consumer prices rose a lot less in July than they did in June.

The big question about recent price increases has been: Are we looking at a transitory shock or a rise in the underlying rate of inflation?

I know a fair number of people, mainly Wall Street types, who get angry at anyone who even asks this question. Inflation is inflation, they insist, and attempts to define "core inflation" are just a way for the Fed to evade its responsibility to maintain price stability. But these critics generally don't know why the concept was invented in the first place.

The truth is that back in the 1970s economists noticed a sharp distinction in the behavior of some prices. The price of soybeans fluctuates a lot both up and down, whereas the prices of goods like new cars and the price of labor — that is, wages — seems to change reluctantly. The thing about these sluggishly moving prices is that once they do get moving, say, once they've been rising 6 percent or 8 percent a year several years in a row, it takes something big, like a severe recession, to stop them from just continuing to rise.

Why this distinction? That's a fairly deep question, and economists are far from united in their answers. But the difference is real, and important. A spike in inflation driven by goods without price inertia is easy come, easy go; inflation driven by goods with price inertia is very hard to get rid of — and to be avoided if possible.

How do we tell the difference? Back in 1975 Robert Gordon proposed that policymakers focus on an inflation measure that excluded food and energy — a rough cut at the distinction between inertial and non-inertial prices that made sense at the time. (Remember, this was the era of wild swings in oil prices caused by wars and revolutions in the Middle East, and food prices were also a lot less stable in the 1970s than they have been since.)

The unstable cost of eating.FRED

Gordon's suggestion proved so useful that "core inflation" — defined by excluding food and energy — became a standard measure and guide for Federal Reserve policy. And use of that measure has been a huge practical success. The Fed was able to keep its cool through several spikes in inflation driven mainly by oil prices, most recently in 2011, because its focus on the core told it that these were transitory shocks, that underlying inflation remained low — and the Fed was right.

But inflation excluding food and energy was always a quick-and-dirty approximation to the underlying concept — a shadow on the wall of the cave cast by the Platonic ideal of inflation in goods with inertial prices. And while this approximation worked well in an era of oil shocks, it's not working well at all in an era of pandemics and vaccines, in which a remarkable amount of price action has been driven by used cars:

Would you buy a used-car index from these people?FRED

Nor are used-car prices the only price we didn't used to think about much but that is having wild swings and should, conceptually, be excluded from core. In normal times, macroeconomists don't pay much attention to shipping costs. But pandemic-related disruptions have created an incredible surge in the price of container shipping.

I've been trying to estimate how much shipping costs may have contributed to recent inflation, multiplying the reported change in the cost of shipping containers to the United States by the number of TEUs — 20-foot equivalent units — unloaded at U.S. ports. There's quite a lot of uncertainty in these estimates, but as a rough guess, shipping may have added between one-quarter and one-half of 1 percent to inflation over the past year. This, too, should be excluded from the Platonic ideal of core.

Why does all this matter? As best I can tell, a fair number of people are still looking at the standard measure of core inflation — which has risen almost as much as headline inflation — and concluded that we really do have a fundamental problem. They could be right, and Team Transitory — economists who believe that this is a transitory blip, a group that includes the Biden Council of Economic Advisers — could be wrong. But you can't settle that argument by looking at a number that, however well it worked in the past, is now a clearly inadequate measure of the underlying concept of inertial inflation.

Feedback If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week's newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com.

Subscribe Today

New York Times Opinion curates a wide range of views, inviting rich discussion and debate that helps readers analyze the world. This work is made possible with the support of subscribers. Please consider subscribing to The Times with this special offer.

Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance.

You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times.

To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences.

Subscribe to The Times

Connect with us on:

facebooktwitterinstagram

Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices

The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨:https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦:https://www.ofa86.com/